as a thought exercise, I tried to wrap my head around to Gbaji's way of thinking. I was doing pretty good, until I got to the part where States votes (as a single entity) were unequal.

The closest I could get was if the states tallied all of their votes, and then each state got 1 vote. For a total of fifty votes. That was the only way I could rectify it in my mind.

The weight of smaller to larger states is my main problem with the current system, and I still believe that a direct 1 person - 1 vote is the better system.

But if the system was really 1 State 1 Vote, then the weight to the smaller States would be huge (Not just a 1 to 3 or 4 ratio in the most extreme cases currently). The system is currently a mix between the 1 State 1 Vote and something that would be 1 Person 1 Vote. A compromise. One doesn't have to support a "all States equal" point of view to support a system that adds some weight to the States with smaller populations.

Well, it was poorly made. You said you tried to understand gbaji's position, but couldn't because all States were not equal. The response to that being, they don't have to be. The States being equal or not should not be a requirement for understanding the position, because it's not a requirement of the position.

Quote:

I tried to wrap my head around to Gbaji's way of thinking. I was doing pretty good, until I got to the part where States votes (as a single entity) were unequal.

The closest I could get was if the states tallied all of their votes, and then each state got 1 vote. For a total of fifty votes. That was the only way I could rectify it in my mind.

You said you tried to understand gbaji's position, but couldn't because all States were not equal.

Professor wrote:

That was the only way I could rectify it in my mind.

I meant that the only way I could even halfway understand Gbaji was if I gave the states a 1:1 vote, not that I agreed with it. Sorry if you didn't understand, but I don't live to inform you.

ETA: Also, it was a thought EXPERIMENT. Think you might have missed that part.

Also ETA: The idea I was trying to understand was that the Rural areas deserve to be weighted to match in voting power, or exceed in voting power, the more populous areas, not necessarily Gbaji's entire argument. I could have been clearer about that.

You don't believe that one study was legitimately debunked; that's fine, I can't make you believe it.

It's not just that it wasn't legitimately debunked, but that the attempt at debunking was so laughable as to be hard to imagine anyone taking it seriously. What on earth do you think will happen when you follow up with those survey respondents?

Quote:

But surely you must have more sources than that one?

Geez. I've forgotten which source is which. And yes, many of these are different groups analyzing the same dataset, so there's that. But here's another one. I'm sure I could dig out some more, but again, it's the same dataset, so you'll get the same or similar results no matter how many times you analyze it. Which really is the point here. The data itself strongly supports the fact that illegal aliens are voting, and in numbers great enough to affect some election results. I ran into one blog/article/whatever that ran some numbers and determined that if less than 1% (I think it was like .6% IIRC) of illegal aliens in Minnesota had voted, based on said dataset showing that when illegals vote they vote 80% for Democrats, that percentage would be sufficient to have more than covered the difference in votes that gave Frankin the win on recount there, which gave the Dems the 60th vote in the Senate they needed, which in turn allowed the ACA to be passed (well, the initial Senate version, which later got reconciled with the House version when they lost a seat, but who needs details). Even relatively small numbers can be significant in our process.

The reality is that it's almost certain that a reasonable percentage of people here illegally are voting illegally. How high is "reasonable" is hard to say, but I'd hope we could agree that the number is certainly not zero, right? And it's certainly not like 12-15 million, right? Or whatever the current number of illegal aliens is these days. It's somewhere in between. And frankly, just looking at the methodologies of get out the vote organizations (and registration organizations) where they certainly don't seem to make much of an effort to exclude illegal aliens makes it likely that there are millions of people who are registered to vote who are illegal residents. The only question is what percentage of them vote.

Let's not forget that it's not like it's even universally agreed upon that they shouldn't be allowed to vote. A poll a year or two ago showed that 53% of Democrats believed that illegal aliens should be allowed to vote (as long as they were residents and paid taxes). To be fair, 21% of Republicans thought so too. The point here is that we're essentially arguing this as though the issue of illegals voting is a horrifying thing that should not be allowed under any circumstances, and therefore no one would allow it (because it's just too horrible to contemplate, right?). We're supposed to all be against it, and therefore conclude that no one would allow it, and everyone would take great steps to prevent it from happening. Um... Except that roughly 1/3rd of the entire sample surveyed believed that they should be allowed to vote. That's a large number.

It's unbelievably unlikely that with that large a number believing they should be allowed to vote, everyone is still working their hardest to make sure that none of them do. And we're all supposed to pretend that there's no motivation for them to do this. And if that's the percentage among the population as a whole, what is the percentage among the illegal population itself? Remember, we're basically not debating the ease with which someone here illegally could be registered to vote (since that's almost certainly a pretty high number). In a state like California, it's not only easy to do this, you'd actually have to expend some effort to *not* get registered to vote. So diligent are our registration drives (which magically seem to target low income black and hispanic neighborhoods far far more than anywhere else), that you'd have to steadfastly refuse to fill out forms that are more or less shoved in your face regularly. Someone here illegally and attempting to blend in and pretend to be a legal citizen is going to do what all the other citizens do. They'll sign the petitions and the registration forms. And when the ballot stuff comes in the mail, they'll read it. And when their bosses encourage them to take time off work to go out and vote (cause it's their right and he's darn well going to make sure he's not violating it), what are they going to do? Not go? Give the employer who has to be able to claim that he had no clue that employee X was an illegal, and had presented a bogus SSN and background for employment a reason to potentially get fined or jailed for violating the law?

Then add in the rhetoric during election time. The Spanish language channels are incredibly active with calls for "everyone" to vote, and are suspiciously absent in any mention that you have to be a citizen to do so. And they make a point of talking about how important voting is for immigrant issues. Again, it's hard to put a firm number on this, but it's quite believable that as many as a million illegals voted in this election, and quite possibly many more (heck, it's possible that it's more just in California). They're given every reason to do so, lots of pressure to do so, and more or less no penalty or risk if they do. There's a whole lot of people actively looking the other way on this issue to believe that the results aren't exactly what they want: Lots of illegal residents voting. Again, they want them to vote. Why are we pretending that all of this effort is expended trying to set up a system where it's relatively safe and easy for illegals to vote, and then expend more effort encouraging them to do so, but that somehow none of them actually are?

Just seems incredibly unlikely. I see this somewhat like the whole "no one's doing elective late term abortions" claim by the Left. Everyone falls over themselves to insist that no one would take advantage of the loopholes in the law that could allow it, but when we finally investigate (over massive protest of course), we find out that's exactly what is happening and has been happening all along. Same deal here. Why wouldn't illegals be voting in large numbers? Our system has massive gaping holes that allow it. We kinda have to assume that a good number of people are, in fact, taking advantage of that fact.

In September, Florida announced that it had identified 207 noncitizens registered to vote (.0018% of the electorate of nearly 11.5 million registered voters); Colorado identified 141 noncitizens (.004% of the electorate of about 3.5 million registered voters). The final numbers were far smaller than the initial lists identifying thousands or hundreds of thousands of potential noncitizens on the rolls. Florida and Colorado both whittled down their lists substantially in August and early September after gaining access to a database belonging to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) called Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE).

Granted, actually comparing voter data against an alien database is less exciting than "Spanish channels aren't saying non-citizens can't vote so I bet a million-thousand of them are, it's just obvious!"

Certainly other attempts to dig up concrete rather than circumstantial evidence of non-citizen voting have been far less impressive:

Stanford Law Review wrote:

In September, Florida announced that it had identified 207 noncitizens registered to vote (.0018% of the electorate of nearly 11.5 million registered voters); Colorado identified 141 noncitizens (.004% of the electorate of about 3.5 million registered voters). The final numbers were far smaller than the initial lists identifying thousands or hundreds of thousands of potential noncitizens on the rolls. Florida and Colorado both whittled down their lists substantially in August and early September after gaining access to a database belonging to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) called Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE).

Granted, actually comparing voter data against an alien database is less exciting than "Spanish channels aren't saying non-citizens can't vote so I bet a million-thousand of them are, it's just obvious!"

You know what else is obvious? That a database that tracks:

Quote:

It does not provide a list of citizens or noncitizens. Rather, it compiles over 100 million records from at least twelve different databases about individuals who have interacted with the U.S. immigration system, such as noncitizens placed in removal proceedings, people with temporary visas, lawful permanent residents, naturalized citizens, and individuals born abroad who obtained certificates of citizenship by proving that they derived U.S. citizenship from their parents.

Does not tell us anything about undocumented aliens using fake IDs and SSNs to get work and housing. As I've already mentioned at least twice now, undocumented aliens who are living in the US do not obtain fake IDs defining themselves as legal aliens (which would cause them to show up in that database). They pretend to be actual legal citizens. Those low numbers are the numbers of legal aliens who are registered and in the system as legal aliens, who later (while either still being here legally, or having overstayed their visas) go out and vote.

You have no idea how immigration services and enforcement work. Noted.

Coming from the guy in Chicago?

Perhaps you need to go look up what the phrase "undocumented alien" means. I'll give you a hint: It means that said alien is *not* in an immigration database (or at least that said alien is not in compliance with whatever status he's supposed to have. ie: was deported and has snuck back into the country and has predictably not informed the immigration service that he has done so).

You can't actually be this dumb. Do you honestly think that others are, and that by pretending that not being in an immigration database means you aren't in the country that maybe others will buy it or something? Cause while I do sometimes question the sanity of those on this forum (hah, asylum, right?), I do tend to think they're more or less at least in the upper half or even third in terms of intelligence. I'm just not seeing how many people are going to fall for that argument Joph.

The larger point is that even the people making such arguments (as in your linked source) aren't that dumb either. They know for a fact that the data they're using doesn't actually address the claim they're attempting to dismiss. But they pretend it does, because they know that a percentage of the population *is* dumb enough to not be able to noodle it out. And they know that a good number of useful idiots will never engage their own brains to realize that "not in the database" does not mean "not in the country", and promptly (and usefully) repeat the insistence that there can't be very many people voting who are here illegally because <blah blah blah>.

It's complete BS. Unless we adopt some sort of voting registration system that is tied directly to naturalization paperwork (ie: birth certificate or citizenship papers), and follow that up with some sort of ID system when casting a ballot, we cannot possibly ensure that only those who are legally supposed to vote are, and in fact cannot possibly know even how many people are violating that requirement. Insisting that the number must be low by using methods that can't detect illegal voting is pretty darn ridiculous. You don't know. You can't possibly know. The very nature of the problem ensures this fact.

You're insisting that even though it's very easy for an undocumented alien to register to vote, and very easy for them, once registered to vote, to actually vote, and they're given every motivation to participate in voting, that they aren't for some reason. But you can't seem to say what that reason is. Why wouldn't they vote? When every single election cycle, your own party makes immigration (especially treatment of illegal immigrants) a major front and center issue? Heck. Do you even stop and think *why* your party does this? Has it occurred to you that it's not just to motivate the bleeding heart types to feel bad about the plight of illegal immigrants, but also to incentivize as many illegals as possible to participate as well? And do you not see how that might just pad the vote count for Democrats in the process?

Your own party does everything but actually say "if you're here illegally you'd better get out and vote", and yet you're going to sit there and insist that the number of illegal immigrants who vote is small? Seems like they're spending a heck of a lot of time, money, and effort motivating a group of people to vote who can't legally vote then. You'd think they wouldn't do that unless they thought (assumed) that the number of illegal immigrants voting was in fact quite significant and would help them win elections they might otherwise lose. Again, a number of things your own party does in this regard makes it obvious that they think there are a large number of potential illegal immigrant votes for them to win over.

You're free to bury your head in the sand if you want, but that doesn't make what you think reality. Not even close.

You have no idea how immigration services and enforcement work. Noted.

Coming from the guy in Chicago?

The one with the wife who worked for years in the federal immigration court?

But tell me more about how your proximity to taco trucks makes you knowledgeable about immigration enforcement. I'm sure your fifty-seven cousins and nieces who are all immigration judges tell you all the time how smart you are

Just some NPR story on American citizens being pick up and held by the INS illegally.

____________________________

In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.

I see this as more of a backlash against the previous administration's policies of selective enforcement. Picking a subject that's guaranteed to get a large response actually increases the pressure against federal regulators and legislators to actually make changes to the existing federal laws and drug classifications. For some of us that's the actual correct way to go about a legalization process.

The actual "states rights" approach would be to reclassify marijuana and remove existing federal legislation regarding its use, and then allow the states to regulate/legislate as they feel. Which removes the existing issues (and my previously stated concern) about something that is legal at the state level, but still illegal at the federal level. This creates a condition where law enforcement officers, employees at companies with federal government contracts, educators, and basically a whole slew of people are put in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.

The state's rights were violated on this issue many many years (decades) ago. Trump's administration is merely pointing out this fact and how untenable it's become (and frankly, it'll get worse if we continue on this path, not better).

I think you give the current administration way too much credit. There's no way they're that Machiavellian.

/shrug

Can't say for sure, but one of the big conservative complaints that Trump at least paid lip service to during the campaign was the Obama administrations overuse of selective enforcement of existing federal laws to get around working through/with congress. Immigration, the ACA, and yeah, the recreational marijuana issue, are three obvious big ones.

I had a competitive state senate seat to vote for which, given how the federal side went, is of even more outsized importance. So there's that.

Gbaji and I got to vote for/against the recreational use of marijuana in our state. Not sure how Gbaji felt, but it passed.

Eh. Don't really care one way or the other. I voted against, but not because I want pot to be illegal, but because I find it problematic to legalize it in the state, while it's still a prohibited substance at the federal level. While I'm usually the one arguing against taking action at the federal level, in this case, the "problem" here is a classification that already exists there, and the correct solution is to reclassify marijuana into a controlled substance just like alcohol. Then you let the states make whatever adjustments they feel like making from there. But you really have to fix that classification at the federal level first, or you're just creating problems.

I'm not remotely the only conservative who views the issue in this manner. Again, I can't claim to know exactly what the Trump administration's objective is here, but given the pattern of "enforce the laws on the books as written, and actually change them if they are bad laws instead of just ignoring them" in the rhetoric at least, it's a reasonable possibility that that's exactly what they're doing.

Heck. It's almost like I was prescient and included a statement about why this isn't really a violation of states rights (since the problem is already existing federal regulations). So yeah. Here we are again. I guess.